liu.seSök publikationer i DiVA
Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
1 - 35 av 35
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Träffar per sida
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
Markera
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Amars, Latif
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Independent Climate Researcher, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Hagemann, Markus
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Röser, Frauke
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    The transformational potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in Tanzania: assessing the concept’s cultural legitimacy among stakeholders in the solar energy sector2017Ingår i: Local Environment: the International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, ISSN 1354-9839, E-ISSN 1469-6711, Vol. 22, nr 1, s. 86-105Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    While energy-sector emissions remain the biggest source of climate change, many least-developed countries still invest in fossil-fuel development paths. These countries generally have high levels of fossil fuel technology lock-in and low capacities to change, making the shift to sustainable energy difficult. Tanzania, a telling example, is projected to triple fossil-fuel power production in the next decade. This article assesses the potential to use internationally supported Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to develop solar energy in Tanzania and contribute to transformational change of the electricity supply system. By assessing the cultural legitimacy of NAMAs among key stakeholders in the solar energy sector, we analyse the conditions for successful uptake of the concept in (1) national political thought and institutional frameworks and (2) the solar energy niche. Interview data are analysed from a multi-level perspective on transition, focusing on its cultural dimension. Several framings undermining legitimacy are articulated, such as attaching low-actor credibility to responsible agencies and the concept’s poor fit with political priorities. Actors that discern opportunities for NAMAs could, however, draw on a framing of high commensurability between experienced social needs and opportunities to use NAMAs to address them through climate compatible development. This legitimises NAMAs and could challenge opposing framings.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 2.
    Buhr, Katarina
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Roth, Susanna
    IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, Stockholm.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Stigson, Peter
    IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, Stockholm.
    Klimatlöftena efter Köpenhamn: Nationella utsläppsmål och handlingsplaner som grund för ett nytt klimatavtal2011Rapport (Övrig (populärvetenskap, debatt, mm))
    Abstract [sv]

    Klimatmötet i Köpenhamn blev omskrivet som ett misslyckande då parterna inte lyckades ta fram ett avtal för att begränsa den globala uppvärmningen till +2°C. Mindre känt är att Köpenhamnsmötet också öppnade för en process där ländernas egna förslag på vad de är villiga att göra för klimatet utgör en viktig utgångspunkt för det fortsatta arbetet med att ta fram ett nytt internationellt klimatavtal.

    Länder uppmanades att skicka in icke-bindande målsättningar som  beskriver avseddabegränsningar av de egna växthusgasutsläppen fram till år 2020. Dessa egenförfattademålsättningar, som vi i den här rapporten kallar Köpenhamnslöftena, har inkluderats iklimatförhandlingarna inför nästa stora årliga konferens som hålls i sydafrikanska Durbani slutet av 2011.

    Köpenhamnslöftena är intressanta för alla som vill förstå den  internationella klimatpolitikensutveckling. I den här rapporten erbjuds en översikt av Köpenhamnslöftena baserad på aktuellforskning. Vilka olika slags löften har länderna angett och vad innebär de? Är dessa löftentillräckliga för att rädda klimatet och hur kan de komma att påverka samhällsekonomin?

    Studien ingår i projektet ”Jämförbarhet av nationella initiativ i en fragmenterad internationellklimatregim” som finansieras av Energimyndigheten.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Klimatlöftena efter Köpenhamn: Nationella utsläppsmål och handlingsplaner som grund för ett nytt klimatavtal
    Ladda ner (png)
    presentationsbild
  • 3.
    Cameron, Lachlan
    et al.
    Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
    Harms, Natalie
    Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
    van Tilburg, Xander
    Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
    Gardiner, Ann
    Ecofys, Germany.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Davis, Stacey
    Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP).
    Pitt, Hannah
    Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP).
    von Luepke, Heiner
    GIZ, Germany.
    Herrmann, Lisa
    GIZ, Germany.
    Zachow, Inga
    GIZ, Germany.
    Day, Thomas
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Röser, Frauke
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Levin, Kelly
    WRI, the USA.
    Vener, James
    UNDP.
    NAMAs and INDCs: Interactions and opportunities2015Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Countries representing more than 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and population have submitted intendednationally determined contributions (INDCs) in anticipation of the 21st COP in Paris. In parallel, developing countries are designing at least 152 nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and 13 have secured implementation funding. Connecting these two concepts, more than a third of developing countries communicate a role for NAMAs in their INDCs. 

    It is therefore vital to understand the potential role of NAMAs (here understood as specific actions) with respect to INDCs (which are often broader targets) and vice versa. This paper explores the links between NAMAs and INDCs with regard to various elements central to their implementation, including: access to finance; stakeholder engagement; sustainable development impacts; measurement, reporting and verification (MRV); and institutional frameworks.

    To avoid delaying mitigation action any further, it is important to keep momentum behind NAMAs. They represent one of the few tools at our disposal for countries to undertake mitigation actions, be recognised for these efforts, and mobilise climate finance and investment. The skills and learning on NAMA development can be seen more fundamentally as capacity for the design of bottom-up actions. Attention should be paid now to ensure that this capacity is maintained in the future. To do this, continued attention must be paid to NAMAs in Paris, as a key implementation tool for INDCs and, therefore, a key element of the success of a new global climate agreement.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 4.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials  to domestic realities2018Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    This book explores the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in climate governance. It starts by discussing BECCS’ global mitigation potential, as depicted in the idealized world of climate scenarios. Chapter 2 shows that almost all climate scenarios compatible with the high likelihood of limiting global warming to 2°C deploy BECCS. While excluding BECCS from these models’ technology portfolios does not necessarily make 2°C compatible scenarios impossible, it does mean that the projected cost of meeting that goal increases. 

    In this context, based on interviews with integrated assessment modelers, chapter 3 illustrates how the use of the word “projected” is deliberate and significant. The modelers insist that they are dealing with projections, not predictions. At the same time, this modesty is contrasted to a core willingness to wield political influence. 

    Chapter 4, which applies a crude method to map European point sources of biogenic CO2, indicates that the scenarios for Europe can be associated with factual potentials. The European pulp and paper industry emitted approximately 60–66 Mt of biogenic CO2 in 2015. To a lesser extent, there is also potential to capture biogenic CO2 from the production of electricity, heat, and biofuels. 

    While R&D into BECCS has previously been framed as a “slippery slope” triggering objectionable consequences, for example, concerning food security, chapter 5 argues that realizing BECCS should instead be seen as an uphill struggle. This conclusion gains support in chapter 6, which maps existing policy incentives for BECCS. This exercise reveals an almost complete lack of political initiatives to deploy BECCS, indicating that the climate scenarios’ large-scale xi  deployment of BECCS could be seen as detached from reality. 

    The book ends with chapter 7, which illustrates how UN and Swedish climate policy objectives have indeed influenced companies to get involved in planning for negative emissions, but also shows how the lack of policy incentives has put “sticks in the wheel” when it comes to affirmative investment decisions. While some funding sources for R&D and capital expenditures are highlighted, the primary concern is the lack of market pull that would provide revenues to cover operational expenditures. 

    This book highlights the many caveats involved in moving from the theoretical potentials identified at the global scale to economically viable potentials facing investors at the business scale. It concludes that overcoming the challenges associated with realizing the theoretical potentials will be daunting, a true uphill struggle. Yet, with appropriate policy incentives, BECCS may still come to play an important role in the struggle to limit global warming to well below 2°C.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities
    Ladda ner (png)
    presentationsbild
  • 5.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Incitamentsstrukturer för bioenergi med koldioxidavskiljning och ‑lagring i Sverige och Europeiska unionen: Underlagsrapport till Klimatpolitiska vägvalsutredningen (M 2018:07)2019Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 6.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Konflikt mellan syd och nord2015Ingår i: Världspolitikens Dagsfrågor, ISSN 0042-2754, Vol. 7-8, s. 22-34Artikel i tidskrift (Övrig (populärvetenskap, debatt, mm))
  • 7.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Mapping design and support priorities to flag structural biases2015Ingår i: Annual Status Report on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): 2015 / [ed] Xander van Tilburg, Lachlan Cameron and Natalie Harms (ECN Policy Studies),, Cologne and Patten: Ecofys and ECN , 2015, s. 47-49Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    The great potential of NAMAs to move to implementing transformational change is promising. Developed countries’ support to developing countries is central to this task. The vague international consensus on NAMAs, resulting from different prioritisation of objectives for NAMAs among developed and developing countries is both a blessing and a curse. As discussed in Section 2.1 the flexibility of the NAMA concept encompasses a broad spectrum of potential actions but it also raises questions as to whether the priorities of donor institutions providing financial support to explicitly target NAMAs and NAMA design correspond to the challenges posed by spurring transformational change.

    In a recently published article (Fridahl, Hagemann, Röser, & Amars, 2015) , we compare (mis)alignments in support providers’ priorities for NAMAs and actual NAMA designs.

    Although the findings should not be overemphasised, lack of information impedes more authoritative statements, two warning flags were raised: 1) misalignment between the priorities of bilateral support providers and countries with a low capacity to act, and 2) the emphasis given by support providers to short timeframes and to measuring direct emission reductions, which can become an obstacle for spurring longer-term transformational change through NAMAs.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 8.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Pre- and post-Paris views on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage2019Ingår i: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage: Using Natural Resources for Sustainable Development / [ed] Jose Carlos Magalhaes Pires and Ana Luisa da Cunha Goncalves, London: Elsevier, 2019, 1, s. 47-62Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    The market potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) depends both on demand for and the cost of BECCS. In making investment decisions, capital as well as operational expenditure is weighed against potential revenues. As BECCS is providing no added value but mitigation, revenues are pending policy instruments capable of providing a market pull for BECCS or an ability to develop a premium market segment encouraging voluntary customer compensation. While the cost side of BECCS has been studied substantially, little is known of sociopolitical factors such as acceptance and political prioritization. This chapter explores questionnaire data from UN climate change conferences from before and after the conclusion of the Paris Agreement in 2015. A total of 2547 completed questionnaires are analyzed to explore if the views on BECCS as a mitigation technology has changed with increasing attention given to negative emission technologies following in the wake of the Paris Agreement. The chapter overall concludes that BECCS is prioritized low for investments both pre and post-Paris. Put in context of the lack of a global collective mitigation ambition, this is pointing toward a moral dilemma. The moral hazard of avoiding radical mitigation action today on the basis of trust in future deployment of BECCS is exacerbated if followed by a lack of interest in investing in BECCS.

  • 9.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage2017Ingår i: Energy Policy, ISSN 0301-4215, E-ISSN 1873-6777, Vol. 104, s. 89-99Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Limiting global warming to well below 2 °C requires the transformation of the global energy system at a scale unprecedented since the industrial revolution. To meet this 2 °C goal, 87% of integrated assessment models opt for using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Without BECCS, the models predict that the goal will be either unachievable or substantially more costly to meet. While the modeling literature is extensive, studies of how key climate policy actors perceive and prioritize BECCS are sparse. This article provides a unique intercontinental mapping of the prioritization of BECCS for the long term transition of the electricity supply sector. Based on survey responses from 711 UN climate change conference delegates, the article reports the low prioritization of BECCS relative to alternative technologies, indicating an urgent need for studies of the socio-political preconditions for large-scale BECCS deployment.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 10.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    Hagemann, Markus
    NewClimate Institute Climate Policy and Global Sustainab, Germany; University of Utrecht, Netherlands.
    Roeser, Frauke
    NewClimate Institute Climate Policy and Global Sustainab, Germany.
    Amars, Latif
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    A Comparison of Design and Support Priorities of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions2015Ingår i: Journal of Environment and Development, ISSN 1070-4965, E-ISSN 1552-5465, Vol. 24, nr 2, s. 237-264Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    In context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing countries are asked to contribute to greenhouse gas control objectives by proposing so-called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Although the concept provides developing countries with complete flexibility to design NAMAs, a majority of proposals seek international support. This article improves our understanding of the matching of NAMA design and international support by exploring (mis-) alignment between support providers and NAMA developers prioritization for NAMAs. The article assesses survey responses from support providers in light of records of NAMAs. We conclude that there is a mismatch between support providers primary emphasis on systems for measuring emissions reductions and the lack of such provisions in existing NAMA proposals. Furthermore, sector preferences may create structural biases in NAMA support.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 11.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Johansson, Linda
    Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    An assessment of the potential for spurring transformational change through Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)2017Ingår i: Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, ISSN 2210-4224, E-ISSN 2210-4232, Vol. 25, s. 35-46Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Fulfilling the UN Paris Agreement on climate change requires societal change at transformational scales, with associated challenges that are intensified in developing countries. In this context, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) – a key instrument in support of developing countries’ climate actions – are promoted for their high theoretical transformative potential. However, little is known of how NAMAs are related to transformation in practice. This article studies how developing countries intend to use the instrument to implement climate actions and whether these intentions are related to how transformation can be spurred at landscape, regime, and niche levels. 144 developing countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement are examined alongside 17 representative NAMA proposals. Although there is scope to improve consideration of the instrument’s theoretically high transformative potential in actual design, current practices indicate that spurring transformational change is already a high priority of NAMA designers.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 12.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Forum for Reforms, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability (Fores), Stockholm, Sweden.
    Lehtveer, Mariliis
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers2018Ingår i: Energy Research & Social Science, ISSN 2214-6296, E-ISSN 2214-6326, Vol. 42, s. 155-165Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Keeping global warming well below 2 °C entails radically transforming global energy production and use. However, one important mitigation option, the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), has so far received only limited attention as regards the sociopolitical preconditions for its deployment. Using questionnaire data from UN climate change conferences, this paper explores the influence of expertise, actor type, and origin on respondents’ a) preferences for investing in BECCS, b) views of the role of BECCS as a mitigation technology, globally and domestically, and c) assessment of possible domestic barriers to BECCS deployment. Non-parametric statistical analysis reveals the low priority assigned to investments in BECCS, the anticipated high political and social constraints on deployment, and a gap between its low perceived domestic potential to contribute to mitigation and a slightly higher perceived global potential. The most important foreseen deployment constraints are sociopolitical, which in turn influence the economic feasibility of BECCS. However, these constraints (e.g. lack of policy incentives and social acceptance) are poorly captured in climate scenarios, a mismatch indicating a need for both complemented model scenarios and further research into sociopolitical preconditions for BECCS.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 13.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: Possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation2016Ingår i: Climate and Development, ISSN 1756-5529, E-ISSN 1756-5537, Vol. 8, nr 2, s. 105-109Artikel i tidskrift (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Finance is at the heart of UN climate diplomacy. Through the long-term finance pledge, developed countries have committed to mobilize USD 100 billion annually from 2020 onwards to support climate action in developing countries. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is also expected to become a key player in the climate finance landscape. This viewpoint presents the views of representatives of developed and developing countries’ governments on how the annual sum of USD 100 billion should be dispensed by the GCF, based on a survey conducted at the 2013 UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw. Respondents’ give their views on (1) the mitigation/adaptation ratio in GCF support and (2) the public/private ratio in financial sources. Respondents from developing countries would prefer to channel a substantially higher amount of the long-term finance pledge through the GCF. The extent to which the long-term finance pledge should be governed by the GCF is contentious, because governments pledge long-term finance without specifying the mitigation/adaptation ratio, whereas the GCF Board is tasked with balancing the allocation of its funds between adaptation and mitigation. This contention is fuelled by the fact that developing countries have a greater say in the allocation of funds from the GCF than from alternative sources of finance for the long-term finance pledge. We suggest that it is time to (1) reformulate the pledge to clarify its mitigation/adaptation ratio and (2) agree to definitions of key concepts such as “climate finance” and “private finance” to allow for more distinct negotiating positions on sources of finance.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 14.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Building legitimacy: consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change2013Ingår i: Interpretive approaches to global climate governance: deconstructing the greenhouse / [ed] Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe and Benjamin Stephan, London and New York: Routledge, 2013, s. 217-231Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    During the past two decades, negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have been the central forum for the organization of global climate governance. However, when it comes to decision-making, the UNFCCC is indeed a rather odd bird in the UN family. The UNFCCC is an independent treaty body that entered into force in 1994 and has yet to adopt rules of procedure, especially with respect to the role and function of voting. In the absence of voting procedures, all decisions have required, if not unanimous agreement, at least consensus in that there are no declared objections (Depledge 2005).

    Depledge (2005) underscores that states’ understanding of UNFCCC consensuses as legitimate is particularly important: if the process fails to build consensuses that are judged as legitimate, UNFCCC outcomes are unlikely to be effectively implemented. In this connection, Hurd (1999) argues that there are three reasons for sovereign states to obey international law: coercion,  maximized selfinterests, and legitimacy. The first two have, according to Hurd, gained a disproportionate amount of attention in international relations studies. However, it no longer seems controversial to claim, with Hurd, that they are insufficient on their own (Okereke et al. 2009; Risse 2004).

    This chapter aims to account for and understand legitimacy, particularly in relation to consensus and conflict in negotiating historic responsibility under the UNFCCC. The case embodies a general principle in multilateral environmental negotiations, which differentiates responsibility based on contribution to a problem (Stone 2004). The long history of negotiating historic responsibility serves to account for and understand legitimacy in connection with consensus and conflict: while it has been endorsed by a number of consensuses, the question of how to operationalize the concept of historic responsibility has been subject to intense debate since the early 1990s (Friman and Linnér 2008).

    This contribution uses discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to approach legitimacy. As indicated in the introduction to this book, Laclau’s and Mouffe’s discourse theory is in general agreement with the departure points for interpretative perspectives. How this position differs from other approaches will be exemplified by contrasting it with an understanding of legitimacy derived from Jürgen Habermas. Both of these theories approach legitimacy in procedural terms, which leads me to start this chapter by discussing definitions of legitimacy and rules of procedure under the UNFCCC. The chapter continues with discussing how this definition relates to the two theories and how they can be applied to the case of negotiations on historic responsibility. One of the four dominant interpretations of climate change (see Hulme 2009 and Chapter 1, this volume), the scientific, has played a particularly important role in building consensus on historic responsibility while avoiding to deal with core conflict. For a long time, this did not promote legitimacy. On the other hand, this chapter concludes that the capacity and consensuses built during the years of negotiating historic responsibility in scientific terms have now created a situation where negotiators may draw on the scientific understanding to explicate conflict in other areas, such as that of social change. How to treat this resurfacing conflict while building legitimacy is still an open question; the chapter ends by tentatively proposing a new long-term negotiating forum under the UNFCCC to deal with core questions on different understandings of responsibility, designed to use conflict to build legitimacy.

  • 15.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Consensus Building in UN Climate Negotiations: Science, Politics and Historic Responsibility2009Ingår i: 1st World Congress of Environmental History, 2009Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 16.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, Sweden .
    Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change2016Ingår i: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, nr 2, s. 285-305Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    This article explores strategies in consensus-making processes in international climate diplomacy. Specifically, it examines the consensus-making politics, in the case of negotiating historical responsibility within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so, analytical concepts from the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe are utilized to look for rationales that underpin discursive structures as well as agreement. To conclude, three rationales have dealt with conflicts over historical responsibility. While the first rationale hid conflict behind interpretative flexibility, the second reverted to “reasoned consensus,” excluding perspectives commonly understood as political rather than scientific. The third rationale has enabled equivocal use of the concept of historical responsibility in several parallel discourses, yet negotiators still stumble on how to synthesize these with a potential to foster future, more policy-detailed, consensuses with higher legitimacy. Understanding the history and current situation of negotiations on historical responsibility from this perspective can help guide policy makers toward decisions that avoid old pitfalls and construct new rationales that generate a higher sense of legitimacy.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 17. Beställ onlineKöp publikationen >>
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Historical responsibility: Assessing the past in international climate negotiations2013Doktorsavhandling, sammanläggning (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Assessments of the past are essential to the struggle over the right to define the normative position of history under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Despite this importance, attempts to analyze the use of history in this context are rare. This thesis aims to investigate how assessments of the past are used in UNFCCC negotiations on responsibilities to act, focusing on negotiations on historical responsibilities. The research questions concern how discourse on historical responsibility: 1) can be structured, 2) is influenced by UNFCCC negotiating practice, 3) has been structured in the UNFCCC, and 4) has enabled agreement despite considerable conflict. Official UNFCCC documentation between 1991 and 2011 was studied using discourse analysis. This study suggests: first, the UNFCCC discourse on historical responsibility conveys two main assessments—a proportional and a conceptual one—of how the past could be used to differentiate responsibilities to act. Second, the strong consensus focus necessitates rationales underlying an “agreeable history” that is neither too flexible, allowing arbitrariness, nor too rigid, reducing Parties’ likelihood of ratifying. Third, as the past evolves, new situations challenge discourse that potentially engages policy makers with a need to rearticulate history. Fourth, if the context changes, so may the importance ascribed to particular assessments of the past. If the stakes increase over time, even more effort is required to reach agreement, which simultaneously becomes more important in solving problems of common concern. Fifth, power seems difficult to circumvent, even by means of cleverly designed negotiating practice. If so, multilateral environmental negotiations could increase the legitimacy of outcomes among Parties in two principal ways: first, by identifying the core conflict that drives negotiations and, second, by evaluating how multilateral environmental negotiations handle conflict. Obscuring or ignoring conflict will likely only reduce the legitimacy of the negotiations. 

    Delarbeten
    1. Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations
    Öppna denna publikation i ny flik eller fönster >>Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations
    2008 (Engelska)Ingår i: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 8, nr 4, s. 339-354Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
    Abstract [en]

    According to the concept of historical responsibility, the commitments of individual countries to take action on climate change are distributed based on the relative effects of their past emissions as manifested in present climate change. Brazil presented a comprehensive version of the concept to pre-Kyoto negotiations in 1997. The ‘Brazilian proposal’ originally combined several justice principles; however, following referral to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, discussion soon became confined to technical calculations. This case illustrates how disparities in knowledge production and framing can influence the inclusiveness of negotiations. Southern participation in the policy process was restrained due to lack of scientific expertise on the part of Southern countries and due to the non-inclusive biophysical discourse traditionally preferred by Northern policy-makers. The historical responsibility issue became stranded on problems of how to correctly represent physical nature in climate models. This marginalized the original intention that equity should be the guiding principle of the North–South interaction, arguably undercutting a potential angle of approach to advance the climate change negotiations. The article concludes that in the interest of facilitating the North–South dialogue in climate change negotiations, any framing of historical responsibility that excludes equity needs to be redefined.

    Nyckelord
    Brazilian proposal, burden sharing, climate change, discourse, equity, historical responsibility, North–South
    Nationell ämneskategori
    Naturvetenskap
    Identifikatorer
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-14986 (URN)10.3763/cpol.2007.0438 (DOI)
    Anmärkning

    Original publication: Mathias Friman and Björn-ola Linnér, Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations, 2008, Climate Policy, (8), 339-354.http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0438. Copyright: Earthscan, http://www.earthscanjournals.com/

    Tillgänglig från: 2008-10-06 Skapad: 2008-10-06 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-06-27Bibliografiskt granskad
    2. Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change
    Öppna denna publikation i ny flik eller fönster >>Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change
    2016 (Engelska)Ingår i: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, nr 2, s. 285-305Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
    Abstract [en]

    This article explores strategies in consensus-making processes in international climate diplomacy. Specifically, it examines the consensus-making politics, in the case of negotiating historical responsibility within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so, analytical concepts from the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe are utilized to look for rationales that underpin discursive structures as well as agreement. To conclude, three rationales have dealt with conflicts over historical responsibility. While the first rationale hid conflict behind interpretative flexibility, the second reverted to “reasoned consensus,” excluding perspectives commonly understood as political rather than scientific. The third rationale has enabled equivocal use of the concept of historical responsibility in several parallel discourses, yet negotiators still stumble on how to synthesize these with a potential to foster future, more policy-detailed, consensuses with higher legitimacy. Understanding the history and current situation of negotiations on historical responsibility from this perspective can help guide policy makers toward decisions that avoid old pitfalls and construct new rationales that generate a higher sense of legitimacy.

    Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
    Springer Netherlands, 2016
    Nyckelord
    Climate negotiations, Consensus, Legitimacy, Historical responsibility
    Nationell ämneskategori
    Tvärvetenskapliga studier inom samhällsvetenskap Miljövetenskap
    Identifikatorer
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107221 (URN)10.1007/s10784-014-9258-1 (DOI)000372245400006 ()
    Forskningsfinansiär
    Forskningsrådet Formas, 2011-779Energimyndigheten, P35462-2
    Anmärkning

    Funding agencies: Formas [2011-779]; Swedish Energy Agency [P35462-2]

    Tillgänglig från: 2014-06-09 Skapad: 2014-06-09 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-06-27Bibliografiskt granskad
    3. Historical responsibility for climate change: defining aspects
    Öppna denna publikation i ny flik eller fönster >>Historical responsibility for climate change: defining aspects
    (Engelska)Manuskript (preprint) (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Since 1990, the academic literature on historical responsibility for climate change has grown considerably. Over these years, the approaches to defining this responsibility have varied considerably. This article demonstrates how this variation can be explained with reference to combining various aspects in defining of historic contribution and responsibility without always explicating them. Scientific knowledge that takes choices among defining aspects for granted is likely to become a foundation for distrust, both within science and among negotiators under UNFCCC and elsewhere. On the other hand, for various reasons, not all choices can be explicated at all times. This article is intended to guide those who need to evaluate the assumptions underlying specific claims regarding historical responsibility. As such, the article aims to map, review, and analytically classify the academic literature on historic contributions to and responsibility for climate change into categories of defining aspects. One immediately policy--‐relevant conclusion emerges from this exercise: Coupled with negotiators’ highly divergent understandings of historical responsibility, the sheer number of defining aspects makes it virtually impossible to offer scientific advice without creating distrust in certain parts of the policy circle. This conclusion suggests that any scientific attempt to establish historical responsibility will have little relevance to actual policy unless policymakers first negotiate a clearer framework for its establishment.

    Nationell ämneskategori
    Samhällsvetenskap
    Identifikatorer
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-86869 (URN)
    Tillgänglig från: 2013-01-07 Skapad: 2013-01-07 Senast uppdaterad: 2013-01-29Bibliografiskt granskad
    4. Building legitimacy: consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change
    Öppna denna publikation i ny flik eller fönster >>Building legitimacy: consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change
    2013 (Engelska)Ingår i: Interpretive approaches to global climate governance: deconstructing the greenhouse / [ed] Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe and Benjamin Stephan, London and New York: Routledge, 2013, s. 217-231Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    During the past two decades, negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have been the central forum for the organization of global climate governance. However, when it comes to decision-making, the UNFCCC is indeed a rather odd bird in the UN family. The UNFCCC is an independent treaty body that entered into force in 1994 and has yet to adopt rules of procedure, especially with respect to the role and function of voting. In the absence of voting procedures, all decisions have required, if not unanimous agreement, at least consensus in that there are no declared objections (Depledge 2005).

    Depledge (2005) underscores that states’ understanding of UNFCCC consensuses as legitimate is particularly important: if the process fails to build consensuses that are judged as legitimate, UNFCCC outcomes are unlikely to be effectively implemented. In this connection, Hurd (1999) argues that there are three reasons for sovereign states to obey international law: coercion,  maximized selfinterests, and legitimacy. The first two have, according to Hurd, gained a disproportionate amount of attention in international relations studies. However, it no longer seems controversial to claim, with Hurd, that they are insufficient on their own (Okereke et al. 2009; Risse 2004).

    This chapter aims to account for and understand legitimacy, particularly in relation to consensus and conflict in negotiating historic responsibility under the UNFCCC. The case embodies a general principle in multilateral environmental negotiations, which differentiates responsibility based on contribution to a problem (Stone 2004). The long history of negotiating historic responsibility serves to account for and understand legitimacy in connection with consensus and conflict: while it has been endorsed by a number of consensuses, the question of how to operationalize the concept of historic responsibility has been subject to intense debate since the early 1990s (Friman and Linnér 2008).

    This contribution uses discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to approach legitimacy. As indicated in the introduction to this book, Laclau’s and Mouffe’s discourse theory is in general agreement with the departure points for interpretative perspectives. How this position differs from other approaches will be exemplified by contrasting it with an understanding of legitimacy derived from Jürgen Habermas. Both of these theories approach legitimacy in procedural terms, which leads me to start this chapter by discussing definitions of legitimacy and rules of procedure under the UNFCCC. The chapter continues with discussing how this definition relates to the two theories and how they can be applied to the case of negotiations on historic responsibility. One of the four dominant interpretations of climate change (see Hulme 2009 and Chapter 1, this volume), the scientific, has played a particularly important role in building consensus on historic responsibility while avoiding to deal with core conflict. For a long time, this did not promote legitimacy. On the other hand, this chapter concludes that the capacity and consensuses built during the years of negotiating historic responsibility in scientific terms have now created a situation where negotiators may draw on the scientific understanding to explicate conflict in other areas, such as that of social change. How to treat this resurfacing conflict while building legitimacy is still an open question; the chapter ends by tentatively proposing a new long-term negotiating forum under the UNFCCC to deal with core questions on different understandings of responsibility, designed to use conflict to build legitimacy.

    Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
    London and New York: Routledge, 2013
    Nyckelord
    Climatic changes -- Government policy, Climate change mitigation -- International cooperation, Klimatpolitik
    Nationell ämneskategori
    Samhällsvetenskap
    Identifikatorer
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-86919 (URN)0-415-52188-2 (ISBN)978-0-415-52188-8 (ISBN)
    Tillgänglig från: 2013-01-07 Skapad: 2013-01-07 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-06-27Bibliografiskt granskad
    5. Understanding Boundary Work through Discourse Theory: Inter/disciplines and Interdisciplinarity
    Öppna denna publikation i ny flik eller fönster >>Understanding Boundary Work through Discourse Theory: Inter/disciplines and Interdisciplinarity
    2010 (Engelska)Ingår i: Science Studies, ISSN 0786-3012, Vol. 23, nr 2, s. 5-19Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Interdisciplinarity is usually described as different from disciplinarity: a discipline is said to generate distinct boundaries, separating it from the undisciplined, while interdisciplinarity connotes the crossing of such boundaries. Less attention is paid to how boundary crossing itself creates new boundaries. This article asks how boundary work can be understood in theory and what this understanding means to academic debate on interdisciplinarity. From this perspective, there is reason to talk of interdisciplines conducting boundary work distinguishable by the fundamental logic guiding boundary creation. In this new approach, disciplinary logic distinguishes itself by promoting the monopolization of knowledge, whereas interdisciplinary logic fundamentally promotes plurality. As opposed to much use of the term “interdisciplinarity”, this version would be conceptually meaningful in relation to “disciplinarity”. Though boundary work following an anti-boundary logic might seem contradictory, this is not necessarily so: what is guarded in an interdiscipline could well be the possibility of permeability.

     

    Nyckelord
    boundary work; discourse; discipline; interdiscipline; interdisciplinarity
    Nationell ämneskategori
    Tvärvetenskapliga studier inom samhällsvetenskap
    Identifikatorer
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-62778 (URN)
    Forskningsfinansiär
    Forskningsrådet Formas, 1700
    Tillgänglig från: 2010-12-03 Skapad: 2010-12-03 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-06-27
    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Historical responsibility: Assessing the past in international climate negotiations
    Ladda ner (pdf)
    omslag
  • 18.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Historical Responsibility in the UNFCCC2007Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    This report tracks the history of historical responsibility in negotiations to and under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The concept aims at attributing individual country burdens in mitigating climate change based on the relative levels of past emissions. A hermeneutic approach and discursive theory has been applied to the empirical material consisting of documents form the main bodies of the UNFCCC. The historic narrative constitutes a basis for an analysis of how the UNFCCC framing of historical responsibility have affected discussions on equity and inclusiveness across the North-South divide. Even though the concept was part of the discursive struggle over the content of the UNFCCC, it has been more central in the struggle to make the principles on equity, established in the Convention, operational. Historical responsibility has been most elaborated in a proposal by Brazil to the 1997 pre-Kyoto negotiations. This proposal combined a biophysical approach (preferred by the North) with that of a political economic approach (preferred by the South). However, the proposal was soon pushed off the central agenda and discussions on the topic turned technical and centred on scientific uncertainties. The biophysical framing excluded discussions on equity. As the proposal was marginalised within UNFCCC as a whole it became central in discussions on comprehensive approaches to historical responsibility. Any who wanted to discuss comprehensive approaches were referred to this forum wherein talks on equity were excluded by rules of discussion. This echoes a world system with a periphery in the global South dependent upon core countries in the global North. The last mentioned have the capacity to set the agenda. The resulting discursive rules, excluding talks on equity, have not been good to the inclusiveness of Southern participants in the discussion process nor favoured much needed dialogue across the North/South divide in climate change negotiations.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Historical Responsibilityin the UNFCCC
  • 19.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Understanding Boundary Work through Discourse Theory: Inter/disciplines and Interdisciplinarity2010Ingår i: Science Studies, ISSN 0786-3012, Vol. 23, nr 2, s. 5-19Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Interdisciplinarity is usually described as different from disciplinarity: a discipline is said to generate distinct boundaries, separating it from the undisciplined, while interdisciplinarity connotes the crossing of such boundaries. Less attention is paid to how boundary crossing itself creates new boundaries. This article asks how boundary work can be understood in theory and what this understanding means to academic debate on interdisciplinarity. From this perspective, there is reason to talk of interdisciplines conducting boundary work distinguishable by the fundamental logic guiding boundary creation. In this new approach, disciplinary logic distinguishes itself by promoting the monopolization of knowledge, whereas interdisciplinary logic fundamentally promotes plurality. As opposed to much use of the term “interdisciplinarity”, this version would be conceptually meaningful in relation to “disciplinarity”. Though boundary work following an anti-boundary logic might seem contradictory, this is not necessarily so: what is guarded in an interdiscipline could well be the possibility of permeability.

     

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 20.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Agreement, significance, and understandings of historical responsibility in climate change negotiations2015Ingår i: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 15, nr 3, s. 302-320Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    For over 20 years, Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have struggled with the normative significance of history for the differentiation of responsibilities. Negotiations on ‘historical responsibility’ have been marked by considerable conflict between developed and developing countries. However, in 2010, the Parties acknowledged the concept in a consensus decision. This article analyses UN Climate Change Conference delegates' agreement with the decision, whether it reconciled conflict between interpretations of historical responsibility, and the significance that delegates ascribe to the decision for future agreements. The decision has not eliminated conflict between different interpretations. Delegates who understand historical responsibility as linking countries' historical contributions to climate change to their responsibilities to act agree more with the decision and foresee it having a stronger influence on future agreements than do those viewing the concept in more conceptual terms. The decision marks the start of negotiations concerning how rather than whether historical responsibility should guide operative text. This article demonstrates that (1) the divergent interpretations pose clear challenges for a necessary but demanding agreement on operationalization, and (2) focusing on an ambiguous version of proportionality between contribution to change and responsibility can become a first step for convergence between divergent positions.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 21.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    Getting the NAMA Registry’s flawed incentive structure right2014Ingår i: Annual Status Report on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) 2014 / [ed] Xander van Tilburg and Shikha Bhasin, Petten and Cologne: ECN and Ecofys , 2014, , s. 41s. 32-33Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    This report is prepared and published as part of the MitigationMomentum project, a collaboration between ECN Policy Studies and Ecofys Germany. The project aims to support the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by contributing to the concrete development of NAMA proposals, and foster cooperation and knowledge exchange within the NAMA community.

    The UNFCCC NAMA Registry will most likely become asidelined remnant in the future NAMA landscape unlessthe flawed incentive structure for making submissions isaddressed. The main disincentive for filing NAMAs in theRegistry is plain: its matching function is failing, so far.The potential of the Registry as a site of learning, trustbuilding and efficiency will be hard to realize withoutaddressing this disincentive.

    Here, we suggest ideas to actualize the Registry intoa central node for both matching NAMA proposalswith support and information sharing. We centre theargument on making the Registry a submission portalfor NAMAs seeking support. The suggestions imply anumber of consequential issues that we also outline inbrief.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 22.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Technologies confining equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations2006Ingår i: Technologies of Nature Politics, 2006, 2006Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    The concept of historical responsibility aims at attributing individual country burdens in mitigating climate change based on the relative levels of past emissions. Brazil presented the first comprehensive version of the concept of historical responsibility before the pre Kyoto climate change negotiations in 1997. The -Brazilian proposal- combined retributive and distributive as well as inter- and intra-generational justice. However, the issue of historical responsibility very soon turned technical and was referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. It illustrates how disparities in knowledge production influence the negotiations. The proposal was restrained in policy process due to lack of scientific expertise from Southern countries and due to non-inclusive discourse. The proposal stranded on problems of how to correctly represent physical nature in mathematical models, marginalising the original intentions of equity in relation to the North-South divide as well as to past and future generations thus undercutting a potential angle of approach for achieving good global governance. 

  • 23.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations2008Ingår i: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 8, nr 4, s. 339-354Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    According to the concept of historical responsibility, the commitments of individual countries to take action on climate change are distributed based on the relative effects of their past emissions as manifested in present climate change. Brazil presented a comprehensive version of the concept to pre-Kyoto negotiations in 1997. The ‘Brazilian proposal’ originally combined several justice principles; however, following referral to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, discussion soon became confined to technical calculations. This case illustrates how disparities in knowledge production and framing can influence the inclusiveness of negotiations. Southern participation in the policy process was restrained due to lack of scientific expertise on the part of Southern countries and due to the non-inclusive biophysical discourse traditionally preferred by Northern policy-makers. The historical responsibility issue became stranded on problems of how to correctly represent physical nature in climate models. This marginalized the original intention that equity should be the guiding principle of the North–South interaction, arguably undercutting a potential angle of approach to advance the climate change negotiations. The article concludes that in the interest of facilitating the North–South dialogue in climate change negotiations, any framing of historical responsibility that excludes equity needs to be redefined.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    FULLTEXT01
  • 24.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Technology obscuring equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC2007Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Many of today's most pressing environmental problems share one important characteristic: they are cross-boundary, i.e., they disregard political and geographical borders. Obviously, this is challenging for several reasons. One is that present legal and political institutionshave no effective reach beyond the nation-state. The same is the case with most political authority. Furthermore, the border crossing character of many environmental problems is also ethically challenging. What is a fair distribution of the burdens required to mitigate and adapt to e.g., climate change, chemical pollution andover use of marine resources and/or to make society less vulnerable to its' consequences? And perhaps even more difficult: Who has theresponsibility to take action - those causing the problems or those inrisk to suffer from the devastating effects? The papers in this section are discussing environmental problems from such points of view as authority, responsibility and distributive justice. 

  • 25.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Technology obscuring equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations2007Ingår i: Authority, Responsibility and Justice in Environmental Politics: Papers from the 8. Nordic Environmental Social Science Research Conference June 18-20 2007. Workshop 1 / [ed] Inger Balberg and Hege Hofstad, Oslo: NIBR , 2007, s. 103-122Konferensbidrag (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    According to the concept of historical responsibility, the commitments of individual countries to mitigating climate change are distributed based on the relative effects of their past emissions as manifested in present climate change. Brazil presented a comprehensive version of the concept to pre-Kyoto negotiations in 1997. The “Brazilian proposal” originally combined several justice principles; however, following referral to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, discussion soon became technical. This case illustrates how disparities in knowledge production and framing can influence the inclusiveness of negotiations. Southern participation in the policy process was restrained due to lack of scientific expertise on the part of Southern countries and due to the non-inclusive biophysical discourse traditionally preferred by the North. The historical responsibility issue became stranded on problems of how correctly to represent physical nature in climate models. This marginalized the original intention that equity should be the guiding principle of the North−South interaction, arguably undercutting a potential angle of approach to advance the climate change negotiations.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Technology obscuring equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations
  • 26.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Strandberg, Gustav
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute; Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Historical responsibility for climate change: science and the science-policy interface2014Ingår i: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, ISSN 1757-7780, E-ISSN 1757-7799, Vol. 5, nr 3, s. 297-316Artikel, forskningsöversikt (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Since 1990, the academic literature on historical responsibility (HR) for climate change has grown considerably. Over these years, the approaches to defining this responsibility have varied considerably. This article demonstrates how this variation can be explained by combining various defining aspects of historical contribution and responsibility. Scientific knowledge that takes for granted choices among defining aspects will likely become a basis for distrust within science, among negotiators under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and elsewhere. On the other hand, for various reasons, not all choices can be explicated at all times. In this article, we examine the full breadth of complexities involved in scientifically defining HR and discuss how these complexities have consequences for the science–policy interface concerning HR. To this end, we review and classify the academic literature on historical contributions to and responsibility for climate change into categories of defining aspects. One immediately policy-relevant conclusion emerges from this exercise: Coupled with negotiators’ highly divergent understandings of historical responsibility, the sheer number of defining aspects makes it virtually impossible to offer scientific advice without creating distrust in certain parts of the policy circle. This conclusion suggests that scientific attempts to narrow the options for policymakers will have little chance of succeeding unless policymakers first negotiate a clearer framework for historical responsibility.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 27.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Upadhyaya, Prabhat
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    A Phased Approach to Internationally Supported NAMAs2013Ingår i: Mitigation Talks, Vol. 3-4, nr 4 & 1, s. 4s. 5-8Artikel i tidskrift (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 28.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Upadhyaya, Prabhat
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Supporting Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions through the Green Climate Fund: Governance capacities and challenges2014Ingår i: Proceedings of the Forum on Development and Mitigation, Cape Town 2014 / [ed] Jooste, Meagan, Emily Tyler, Kim Coetzee, Anya Boyd, and Michael Boulle, Cape Town: Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town , 2014, s. 65-77Konferensbidrag (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    The Green Climate Fund (GCF), the new operating entity under the Financial Mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is emerging as an innovative multilateral climate finance institution. Among other things, it is commissioned to support developing countries’ project-based and programmatic pursuits to address climate change, including Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Promising as these ambitions may be, the GCF’s effectiveness in supporting NAMAs hinges on overcoming significant governance challenges. Using perspectives from international environmental law and governance literature, this paper identifies some crucial governance challenges and analyses the capacities granted to the GCF Board in dealing with them. Developed countries expect that support will lead to measured emissions reductions. Developing countries prefer stringent monitoring of support while hesitating to agree on internationally defined NAMA criteria. The GCF will struggle with this balancing act. Absence of concrete criteria for deciding on NAMA support may prompt potential funders to seek other channels for supporting NAMAs. On the other hand, too-rigid criteria may discourage developing countries from submitting NAMA proposals. For the GCF to be effective in incentivising development and diffusion of NAMAs, we argue that the contracting Parties to the Convention will have to forge an institution that has the capacity to balance diverging expectations on NAMAs. Our analysis indicates that the GCF Board has the governance capacity to efficiently deal with this challenging balancing act. Inability to exercise this capacity may result in establishing a strong empty shell for supporting NAMAs.

  • 29.
    Glaas, Erik
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Wilk, Julie
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Scientific Knowledge and knowledge production: How do different traditions inform climate science and policy research?2009Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
  • 30.
    Haikola, Simon
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema teknik och social förändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage2019Ingår i: Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, ISSN 0016-3287, E-ISSN 1873-6378, Vol. 114, nr 102472Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has recently risen to international prominence due to its modelled potential to allow a mid-term temperature overshoot compensated by large, long-term removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The technology, however, is far from commercial. Therefore, BECCS is a suitable entry point for exploring how modellers identify, manage and communicate uncertainties. By applying framing analysis to 21 interviews with researchers working directly or closely with integrated assessment models (IAMs), three prevalent cognitive frames are identified: Climate scenarios as (1) talking points to discuss possible futures, (2) fundamentally political prescriptions that foreclose alternatives, and (3) distortions of pure science. The discourse around IAMs has entered a phase of critical reflection about their performative, political dimensions, both inside and outside of the IA modelling community. This phase is marked by modellers grappling with the responsibilities that are perceived to come with simultaneously providing maps of possible futures and standards by which these maps are to be evaluated.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 31.
    Haikola, Simon
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema teknik och social förändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers2018Ingår i: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities / [ed] Mathias Fridahl, Brussels: Liberal European Forum , 2018, s. 17-31Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Chapter 3 (“Views of BECCS Among Modelers and Policymakers”) moves from exploring the magnitude of BECCS deployment in climate scenarios to outlining caveats raised by modelers themselves. The chapter addresses how modelers navigate the landscape of political and academic pressures to deliver timely, insightful, and relevant policy advice despite inherent and crucial uncerttainties and increasing model complexity. Based on interviews with modelers, the chapter discusses perspectives on uncertainty, the communication of IAM results, and the models’ relationship to reality. The chapter also discuss views of BECCS among policymakers whom generally want to give relatively low priority to investments in BECCS. Failing to invest in the future delivery of BECCS, combined with today’s lack of mitigation ambition, limits future generations’ maneuvering room to resolve the climate crisis.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers
  • 32.
    Hansson, Anders
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema teknik och social förändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Pius, Yanda
    University of Dar es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Pauline, Noah
    University of Dar es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Mabhuye, Edmund
    University of Dar es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania2019Ingår i: Environment, Development and Sustainability, ISSN 1387-585X, E-ISSN 1573-2975Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Most mitigation scenarios compatible with a likely change of holding global warming well below 2 °C rely on negative emissions technologies (NETs). According to the integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to produce mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reports, the NET with the greatest potential to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crucial questions arise about where the enormous quantities of biomass needed according to the IAM scenarios could feasibly be produced in a sustainable manner. Africa is attractive in the context of BECCS because of large areas that could contribute biomass energy and indications of substantial underground  CO2 storage capacities. However, estimates of large biomass availability in Africa are usually based on highly aggregated datasets, and only a few studies explore future challenges or barriers for BECCS in any detail. Based on previous research and literature, this paper analyses the pre-conditions for BECCS in Tanzania by studying what we argue are the applications of BECCS, or the components of the BECCS chain, that are most feasible in the country, namely (1) as applied to domestic sugarcane-based energy production (bioethanol), and (2) with Tanzania in a producer and re-growth role in an international BECCS chain, supplying biomass or biofuels for export to developed countries. The review reveals that a prerequisite for both options is either the existence of a functional market for emissions trading and selling, making negative emissions a viable commercial investment, or sustained investment through aid programmes. Also, historically, an important barrier to the development of production capacity of liquid biofuels for export purposes has been given by ethical dilemmas following in the wake of demand for land to facilitate production of biomass, such as sugarcane and jatropha. In these cases, conflicts over access to land and mismanagement have been more of a rule than an exception. Increased production volumes of solid biomass for export to operations that demand bioenergy, be it with or without a CCS component, is likely to give rise to similar conflicts. While BECCS may well play an important role in reducing emissions in countries with high capacity to act combined with existing large point sources of biogenic  CO2 emissions, it seems prudent to proceed with utmost caution when implicating BECCS deployment in least developed countries, like Tanzania.The paper argues that negative BECCS-related emissions from Tanzania should not be assumed in global climate mitigation scenarios.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 33.
    Upadhyaya, Prabhat
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Roman, Mikael
    Off Sci and Innovat, Brazil.
    Comparing Climate Policy Processes in India, Brazil, and South Africa: Domestic Engagements With International Climate Policy Frameworks2018Ingår i: Journal of Environment and Development, ISSN 1070-4965, E-ISSN 1552-5465, Vol. 27, nr 2, s. 186-209Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Using policy cycle model as a heuristic, this article studies Indian, Brazilian, and South African engagement with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by (a) comparing NAMA policy process and (b) identifying factors driving or limiting the frameworks domestic application. India largely remained uninterested in NAMAs, Brazil aligned its domestic climate policy and NAMAs, while South Africa had a more nuanced engagement when formulating NAMAs. Four factors influenced these countries NAMA engagements: the level and necessity of international support, the availability of domestic policy provisions to tackle climate change, the domestic institutional capacity to coordinate interministerial functioning, and the role of individuals in the institutional apparatus. As an international climate policy framework, studying NAMA engagement provides learnings for nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement for designing the instrument, ensuring clarity on support provisions for ratcheting up ambitions, and enhancing institutional capacity, to expedite transition from policy formulation to implementation and beyond.

  • 34.
    Upadhyaya, Prabhat
    et al.
    Centre for Policy Research, India.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Financing Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): A phased approach2012Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Adequate financing by developed countries is essential for establishing a mechanism for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. But the discussion on how NAMAs can be supported is largely conceptual with no agreed-on formulation of how to obtain financial support for them. More clarity, specifically regarding the expected sources of finance, magnitude of support to be made available, role of intermediaries involved, and institutional arrangements needed to implement NAMAs would make the regulatory framework more predictable. This working paper attempts to focus on three research questions in relation to NAMA support:

    • What are the expected types of sources for NAMA finance?
    • How does NAMA financing relate to other climate financing targets?
    • What potential NAMA financing constraints can be foreseen?

    It is important that a strategic approach towards deciding the focus of NAMA support be designed. This paper suggests one such strategic approach for supporting NAMAs: A phased approach. The approach takes the capability aspects of the developing countries into account and proposes a sharpened focus on institution building in developing countries and reducing barriers for private investments in the long term. Such an approach can provide a deeper engagement wherein the efforts of developing countries are able to result in long lasting changes.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Financing Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions: A phased approach
  • 35.
    Wibeck, Victoria
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema teknik och social förändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Himmelsbach, Raffael
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema Miljöförändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten. Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning, CSPR.
    Anshelm, Jonas
    Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema teknik och social förändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
    Policy brief on climate engineering2016Rapport (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Climate engineering (geoengineering) has been widely discussed as a potential instrument for curbing global warming if politics fails to deliver green house gas emission reductions. This debate has lost momentum over the last couple of years, but is now being renewed in the wake of the December 2015 Paris climate change agreement. Resurgent interest primarily stems from two elements of the Paris agreement. First, by defining the long term goal as “achiev[ing] a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” instead of decarbonization, the agreement can be interpreted as providing leeway for climate engineering proposals. Second, the agreement formulated a temperature goal of “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. In response, several scientists argued that these goals may require climate engineering.

    As these discussions will affect the forthcoming review of pathways toward 1.5°C warming, this policy brief takes stock of climate engineering. It draws on the expertise of Linköping University’s Climate Engineering (LUCE) interdisciplinary research programme. The brief provides an overview of the status of academic debate on climate engineering regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS);  stratospheric aerosol injection; and mass media reporting and public engagement.

    Ladda ner fulltext (pdf)
    Policy brief on climate engineering
1 - 35 av 35
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf